Could Canada Build

Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
radar? Assume they have lots of money (10-20 billion dollars) and
seven or so years.

Canada is actually well positioned to build the airframe. Bombardier
has very significant experience building subsonic jets and presumably
could handle supersonic jets with time and money. The science behind
this is VERY well known. Heck even Burt Rutan can do this, surely the
nation of Canada can.

Pratt Canada builds lots of gas turbines. They specialize in smaller
jets but again given time and money could likely scale up.

Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
searching.

Missiles are another problem. Web searches suggest that Canada builds
no missiles and more importantly no seaker heads. They might have to
start from scratch on this.

So, can Canada build a modern jet?

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
om...
Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
radar? Assume they have lots of money (10-20 billion dollars) and
seven or so years.


Not while they keep electing Liberals. Buying production helicopters, or
deciding to buy production helicopters, seems to be at the outer limit of
their ability under such leadership.

--
Scott

Imagine how the war would be different if the liberals were giving aid and
comfort to America.

tscottme wrote:
Charles Talleyrand wrote:

Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
radar?

Not while they keep electing Liberals. Buying production helicopters,
or deciding to buy production helicopters, seems to be at the outer
limit of their ability under such leadership.

I don't see why Canadian engineers would be *incapable* of it.

The political considerations to which you allude are, of course,
relevant to whether such a project would be authorised, but my
brother-in-law would be more than a bit miffed by the suggestion that
they affect his competence as an engineer.

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...
tscottme wrote:
Charles Talleyrand wrote:

Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
radar?

Not while they keep electing Liberals. Buying production helicopters,
or deciding to buy production helicopters, seems to be at the outer
limit of their ability under such leadership.

I don't see why Canadian engineers would be *incapable* of it.

The political considerations to which you allude are, of course,
relevant to whether such a project would be authorised, but my
brother-in-law would be more than a bit miffed by the suggestion that
they affect his competence as an engineer.

Heaven help us from miffed Canadian engineers. I re-read my reply and
didn't find the words engineering, competence, or incapable. Don't be so
defensive.

--
Scott

Imagine how the war would be different if the liberals were giving aid and
comfort to America.

tscottme wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:
tscottme wrote:

Not while they keep electing Liberals.

I don't see why Canadian engineers would be *incapable* of it.

The political considerations to which you allude are, of course,
relevant to whether such a project would be authorised, but my
brother-in-law would be more than a bit miffed by the suggestion
that they affect his competence as an engineer.

Heaven help us from miffed Canadian engineers. I re-read my reply
and didn't find the words engineering, competence, or incapable.
Don't be so defensive.

You were clearly having a dig at the politicians.

That said, while you didn't explicitly malign the engineers, the nearest
you got to praising them was with that "Not while ..." bit.

Methinks we agree. :-)

in article , tscottme at
wrote on 6/28/04 4:23:


Not while they keep electing Liberals. Buying production helicopters, or
deciding to buy production helicopters, seems to be at the outer limit of
their ability under such leadership.

Let me remind you who killed the CF105 Arrow, that Conservative twit
John Dief-the-Chief! The Liberals don't have a track record to be proud of
since the demise of the Arrow either. Developing a modern effective fighter
is not practical for a single country these days. For example the latest
European Joint Strike Fighter is a multi-nation effort. On the other hand,
do we really need one! I am ex-air force and the days of a manned fighter
to the disgust of hot shot pilots is drawing to an end. The un-manned
fighter will before long take over these tasks according to some. The
Raptor will probably be the last U.S. manned fighter. Man can't handle the
stresses placed on him in modern airframes so un-manned versions will
probably dominate in the future.

Ed Majden wrote in message ..

snip

I am ex-air force and the days of a manned fighter
to the disgust of hot shot pilots is drawing to an end. The un-manned
fighter will before long take over these tasks according to some. The
Raptor will probably be the last U.S. manned fighter. Man can't handle the
stresses placed on him in modern airframes so un-manned versions will
probably dominate in the future.


I shouldn't have to say more...Manned combat aircraft will continue
for two reasons, one political, and the other biological if you will.
Politically they need a realtime human in the loop, and moreover, war
being the great sport of nations, the raison d'etre of the fighter is
largely to give the knight a mount for the jousting. Missiles don't
really require a high-G platform and if laser weapons replace guns,
they'll be turreted.


__________________________________________________ _______________

Putting MM on the dime would serve a lot of purposes. It would
displace the devious FDR, send a signal to the Islamist world, make
the currency more attractive, and be a thorn in the ass to the Kennedy
Family, to name four good ones

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
Could Canada build a complete modern jet fighter with missiles and
radar? Assume they have lots of money (10-20 billion dollars) and
seven or so years.

We did it before - in fact it was way ahead of its time. But the
chicken-**** Conservative government that was in power at the time
caved to US pressures to scrap the Arrow.

Canada is actually well positioned to build the airframe. Bombardier
has very significant experience building subsonic jets and presumably
could handle supersonic jets with time and money. The science behind
this is VERY well known. Heck even Burt Rutan can do this, surely the
nation of Canada can.

Pratt Canada builds lots of gas turbines. They specialize in smaller
jets but again given time and money could likely scale up.

Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
searching.

Given that our radar satellite systems make the US nervous (didn't we
have to agree to reduce resolution on RadarSat during US fly-overs?),
I think we can manage this without much trouble. McDonald-Detwiller
certainly has the talent to do this... and the folks at several other
firms which do international military contracts certainly have
additional talent that could be tapped. And the detection systems
used on the Cougar (correct designation?) certainly attest to the
ability to develop very sophisticated detection and tracking capabilities.

Missiles are another problem. Web searches suggest that Canada builds
no missiles and more importantly no seaker heads. They might have to
start from scratch on this.

Common technology --- most countries purchase these from others. And
reverse engineering the missles already in inventory isn;t such a hard
thing to do. Simple web searches would give all the technology, or
one could start with the basics as published in Smithsonian Air &
Space a while back...

So, can Canada build a modern jet?

Hell, yes.

I am curious as to why you base your assumptions on the results of
"web searches". Nor all companies are so stupid as to place
classified, sensitive, or advanced information on the web -- Canadian
companies don't tend to use the web to hype their military knowledge
as those of some other nations do.

Just because it is not on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist! As
the SETI folks are fond of saying: "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence!".

"Ford Prefect" wrote in message ...
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
searching.

Given that our radar satellite systems make the US nervous (didn't we
have to agree to reduce resolution on RadarSat during US fly-overs?),
I think we can manage this without much trouble. McDonald-Detwiller
certainly has the talent to do this... and the folks at several other
firms which do international military contracts certainly have
additional talent that could be tapped. And the detection systems
used on the Cougar (correct designation?) certainly attest to the
ability to develop very sophisticated detection and tracking capabilities.


I think the antenna for the radar for RADARSAT-2 was built by a Canadian
company named EMS. I think they used their Atlanta office for this though.
Even so, they must have some clue in their two Canadian offices (they have
three main engineering offices total).

It's the right type of antenna (light weight planar array)
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_s...2/inf_over.asp
http://www.emsstg.com/

McDermitt and company only manage and sell the data.


Missiles are another problem. Web searches suggest that Canada builds
no missiles and more importantly no seaker heads. They might have to
start from scratch on this.

Common technology --- most countries purchase these from others. And
reverse engineering the missles already in inventory isn;t such a hard
thing to do. Simple web searches would give all the technology, or
one could start with the basics as published in Smithsonian Air &
Space a while back...

Maybe. I'm sure eventually Canada could do this from first prinipals
if need be. I was hoping for an example of Canadian success in the field.


I am curious as to why you base your assumptions on the results of
"web searches". Nor all companies are so stupid as to place
classified, sensitive, or advanced information on the web -- Canadian
companies don't tend to use the web to hype their military knowledge
as those of some other nations do.

Just because it is not on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist! As
the SETI folks are fond of saying: "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence!".

That's true.

But I'm not looking for classified information. However, most companies
put up web pages and issue press releases when they win major contracts
or make sigificant technological accomplishments. It's absolutley no
secret who makes the F/A-18 radar even if some specific techniques are
classified.

Besides, I don't have a pile of industry pundits camped out in my
living room to ask.

In article , "Charles Talleyrand"
wrote:

"Ford Prefect" wrote in message
...
Charles Talleyrand wrote:
Radar is a problem. Web searches make me believe that Canada only
builds radars for atmospheric research and air traffic control and one
military radar, which is used by maritime aircraft for periscope
searching.

Given that our radar satellite systems make the US nervous (didn't we
have to agree to reduce resolution on RadarSat during US fly-overs?),
I think we can manage this without much trouble. McDonald-Detwiller
certainly has the talent to do this... and the folks at several other
firms which do international military contracts certainly have
additional talent that could be tapped. And the detection systems
used on the Cougar (correct designation?) certainly attest to the
ability to develop very sophisticated detection and tracking capabilities.


I think the antenna for the radar for RADARSAT-2 was built by a Canadian
company named EMS. I think they used their Atlanta office for this though.
Even so, they must have some clue in their two Canadian offices (they have
three main engineering offices total).

It's the right type of antenna (light weight planar array)
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_s...2/inf_over.asp
http://www.emsstg.com/

If you want to build a modern fighter radar, then AESA is the only way to go.

There's only 3 companies in the world with the expertise to do an AESA radar.
2 of them are in the USA, and only one of them has AESA in production.

For Canada to come up to speed with a purely domestic system
would take a minimum of 10 years.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur